[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 48 (Thursday, March 19, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E723-E724]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCTION OF NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND ECONOMIC CONVERSION ACT OF 2009

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 19, 2009

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I am again introducing the Nuclear 
Disarmament and Economic Conversion Act (NDECA), as I have done since 
1994, after working with the residents who were responsible for a 
ballot initiative passed by D.C. voters in 1993. NDECA requires the 
United States to disable and dismantle its nuclear weapons when all 
other nations possessing nuclear weapons enact laws to do the same. 
NDECA further provides that when U.S. nuclear weapons are dismantled, 
the resources for supporting nuclear weapon

[[Page E724]]

programs would be used for our growing human and infrastructure needs, 
such as housing, health care, Social Security and the environment.
  I chose to introduce the NDECA before the March 20th memorial service 
for William Thomas, who sat in front of the White House in an anti-
nuclear vigil for nearly 28 years. His efforts have been called the 
longest uninterrupted war protest in U.S. history. He truly embodied 
our inalienable First Amendment rights. Tragically, instead of nuclear 
disarmament, nations around the world have increased efforts to seek or 
acquire nuclear capability with Iran's failure to halt uranium 
enrichment captured attention until recently, China's nuclear weapons 
and today North Korea continues testing missile long range missiles and 
there is little doubt that North Korea has acquired a nuclear device. 
India and Pakistan continue to fight over the Kashmir region and with 
the recent terrorist strikes in India, the instability in the region 
persists. Pakistan assures us that its weapons are safe, as nuclear 
secrets are sold by its top scientists, the streets are riled with 
protests, a military coup is not out of the question, and the semi-
autonomous regions are dominated by Al-Quaeda and the Taliban.
  The invasion of Iraq cost the United States much of its leadership on 
nuclear proliferation and other urgent international issues. This 
country reached a non-credible status in dissuading other nations who 
aspire to become or remain nuclear powers as we ourselves took greater 
initiative in increasing our own nuclear weapons program. We moved in 
the right direction when the Senate ratified the Moscow Treaty in 2003, 
which provides that by 2012 both the U.S. and Russia will reduce their 
long-range warheads by two-thirds from approximately 6,000 warheads 
each to 2,200. However, the Bush administration failed to build on this 
effort. According to the study, ``Securing The Bomb: An Agenda for 
Action'' (May, 2004; prepared by the Belfer Center, Harvard University 
Kennedy School of Government): ``Total nuclear-threat-reduction 
spending remains less than one quarter of one percent of the U.S. 
military budget. Indeed, on average, the Bush administration requests 
for nuclear-threat-reduction spending over FY 2002-2005 were less, in 
real terms, than the last Clinton administration request, made long 
before the 9/11 attacks ever occurred.'' Instead, the Bush 
administration moved to increase the country's nuclear capacity.
  However, the problem today is even more complicated than nuclear 
disarmament by nation states. The greatest threat today is from 
inadequately defended and guarded sites in many countries where there 
is enough material to make nuclear weapons and many opportunities for 
terrorists or nations without weapons to secure nuclear materials. 
Astonishingly, because of the previous administration's absence of 
leadership, less nuclear material was seized in the two years following 
the 9/11 attacks than in the two years immediately preceding the 
attacks (``Securing The Bomb: An Agenda for Action'', May 2004).
  In my work on the Homeland Security Committee, I know that threats 
from nuclear proliferation and available nuclear material are more 
dangerous in the post 9/11 era than in 1994, when I first introduced 
the Nuclear Disarmament and Economic Conversion Act. It is more urgent 
than ever to begin closing down nuclear capability here and around the 
world.
  Today, our country has a hobbled economy, 45 million people still 
without health insurance, a long list of other urgent domestic needs 
put on the back burner following the invasion of Iraq, large tax cuts 
for wealthy people and corporations, and millions of Americans losing 
their homes and jobs. As the only nation that has used nuclear weapons 
in war, and still possesses the largest arsenal, the U.S. has an 
obligation to begin the arduous process of leading the world in the 
transfer of nuclear weapons funds to urgent domestic needs.

                          ____________________